Law Weblog

Diversity at the Bar, Neuberger interim report

Lord Neuberger has published interim findings into what can be done to ensure that the Bar is open to all. His final report will address concerns that it is now harder to enter the Bar than ever before. Costs of university mean one in three students have debts of £20,000. The one-year Bar Vocational Course (BVC) can add another £15,000.

Times report, here.

Teachers and schools in England today have new legal powers to restrain and discipline unruly pupils

The new powers are part of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, much of which came into force on 1 April 2007.
The legislation provides for teachers’ rights to break up fights and to confiscate items such as mobile phones.
The changes are intended to put an end to the “You can’t tell me what to do” culture.
Teachers will have the right to physically restrain and remove unruly pupils, and impose detention, including sessions outside school hours.
Teachers will be able to discipline pupils outside school too – if they see children behaving badly on public transport, for example.

Section 93(1)(c) allows reasonable force to be used when a pupil is “prejudicing the maintenance of good order and discipline at the school” … This sounds as though a well aimed clip round the ear is now lawful, it will be interesting to see if parents and more importantly the courts think so.

At last a Ministry of Justice, in a few weeks time

The Home Office is to be split and one section will become the Ministry of Justice.
Full details will evident on its creation on May 9.

The Secretary of State for Justice will be Lord Falconer who believes it makes sense to bring together all the people involved in the justice system.

The Ministry of Justice will comprise the National Offender Management Service, the Office for Criminal Justice Reform and the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA).

The new department will have responsibility for the courts, sentencing, prisons, rehabilitation plus DCA policies like voting, crown dependencies, human rights, tribunals and freedom of information.

A woman cannot claim rape just because she was drunk

R v Bree [2007] CA
[Consent – drunken consent is still consent]
D had intercourse with V a 19 year old student at Bournemouth University, she claimed she was too drunk to give consent.

Held: V was still capable of consenting to intercourse, even though she had drunk so much she was sick (she had drunk Red Bull and Vodka and cider).

Not guilty
Comment: This case further damages the government’s intention to drive up the number of convictions for rape following the passing of section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003,which says that a person consents if she agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice. It was thought that a very drunk person would have lost capacity would not have consented and the defendant would be guilty (subject to having the necessary mens rea). Sir Igor Judge said, “…when someone who has had a lot to drink is in fact consenting to intercourse, then that is what she is doing, consenting: equally, if after taking drink, she is not consenting, then by definition intercourse is taking place without her consent.

Legal aid, The Law Society, Civil Action – Letter Before Action

The Law Society has sent a Letter Before Action, as any litigant has to before taking proceedings. The letter is required as part of the “Pre-action Protocols”. The proceedings proposed are against the Legal Services Commission. The action is on behalf of thousands of solicitors throughout the country who are objecting to the proposals that followed Lord Carter’s Report.

The solicitors are angry that the current legal aid contracts are not going to be renewed at the end of the month and they will be subject to a ‘unified contract’. This essentially means that instead of being paid for the work they do they will be paid for a job they do. So, if a case is more complex and they need to do extra legal work they will not get paid for the extra work.

In many areas solicitors have withdrawn their labour at courts. The government is determined the reforms will be implement. Hence the matter will now be dealt with by the courts.

The end of jury trial?

The Lords voted by 216 to 143 – a majority of 73 – to delay the second reading of The Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill.   It looks like the government might use the Parliament Acts to force the measure through.

The end of jury trial?

Activity in the Lords today will not end jury trial, but it is an attempt to restrict the use of juries in criminal complex fraud cases. A bill before the Lords will attempt yet again to allow a judge to sit alone in complex cases. Critics see it as the thin edge of the wedge. The bill is a short bill and cannot be amended so it is a do or die effort.

High Court rules Sex Discrimination Laws incompatible with EU Directive

This week the High Court ruled, in judicial review proceedings brought by the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), that the government has failed to implement the European Equal Treatment Directive properly within the Employment Equality (Sex Discrimination) Regulations 2005 so as to protect the rights of women.The definition of harassment in the regulations was too narrow, and did not reflect the broad protection in the Directive. For example, the regulations gave no apparent protection to women harassed by clients, even when their employer knows of the harassment and could take steps to prevent it but fails to do so.

Women’s rights during maternity leave were also unclear as a result of the new regulations. Women and their employers did not know whether a woman was protected if she was not consulted about a change to her job while on maternity leave, or if she fell behind a queue for promotion because her time on additional maternity leave was excluded from length of service.

The court has ordered that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has until midday, March 16th to inform the EOC and the court how the Government plans to remedy the situation.

Miscarriage of justice prisoners lose prison bed and breakfast challenge

Carl Bridgewater aged 13 murdered in 1978

The House of Lords ruled this week that people wrongly convicted of crimes who are paid compensation, should have the amount they receive reduced by up to 25% for the cost of keeping them in prison. The argument being that they have not had to feed themselves during the period they are wrongly held in prison.

• Michael Hickey and his cousin, Vincent, were wrongly convict ed of the murder of newspaper boy Carl Bridgewater, 13, who was shot dead in 1978 in West Midlands. Their convictions were quashed in 1997.

• Michael O’Brien, who was 20 when he was convicted in 1988 of the murder of a Cardiff newsagent, was awarded £670,000 compensation after spending 10 years in jail.

Lord Brennan, QC, the Home Office-appointed assessor, reduced awards by 25 per cent deductions to pay for their saved “board and lodgings”.
The House of Lords supported the Independent Assessor; it reflected the necessities of life which they would have had to buy from their wages had they been at liberty.
Lord Brown said,

“Here are men, incarcerated in prison for many years for crimes they never committed, entitled by statute to compensation for that grave miscarriage of justice, now required, so it is suggested on their behalf, to give credit against their earning losses for the supposed benefits of being fed, clothed and housed in prison.”

Sally Clarke wrongly convicted of killing her two sons has died at her home

Sally Clark – the solicitor wrongly jailed for murdering her two sons – died yesterday.
Mrs Clark, 42, was jailed in 1999 for killing her 11-week-old son Christopher in December 1996 and eight-week-old Harry in January 1998.
A first appeal against the convictions failed in 2000 but she was freed in 2003 after a fresh appeal. A statement released by the family solicitor said she was found dead at her home on Friday morning.

BBC story here